Sachin vs Ponting

A constant time pass conversation in cricketing circles - who is better, 'Sachin or Ponting'? Who is the more complete cricketer? Reasonable arguments are put forth on either side of the debate. Some people pitch in and say that the comparison has to be normalized, meaning we should adjust for the fact that we are not comparing homogenous entities. The usual ones are about the pressure of billion people that Sachin had and that Ponting never got to face the mightiest bowling attack (the austrialin bowling attack) of the era in intenational matches etc. The arguments for normalization are quite valid and certainly have to be looked into. But, the question that arises is that were does one draw the line of normalization when comparing. May be one person got so much better training and exposure from younger days. May be one person did not have to deal with pathetic sports administrators. Its important to investigate this to arrive at the truth.

Typically, motives for comparing two people are appreciation of the better person for it is assumed that they are totally responsible for how good they are in whatever they do and that they are role models for others to emulate. The same goes for critisizing the worser person. But how much are they actually responsible for their states?

Some peoples bodies are born with certain abilities. Same goes to our minds. Now, how does one normalize for that? This may sound absurd, for typically physical and mental possibilites are taken as given and then the individuals effort in maximizing it is what people want to compare. But, its not so absurd because ultimately, the physical and mental possibilites one is born with sets limits. Similarly, it might be purely accidental (like a interested cousin) that one got interested in cricket at an earlier age than the other and hence had a better head start. Someones family conditions may have been suitable for the development of a cricketer at the right age. The list is endless. If we try to list down all the reasons that are responsible, in whatever degree, to why something happened then what we get is the causal web for that event.

The point I am coming to is that this causal web is infinitely complex. People almost always forget it and happily indulge in praise for accomplishing something or get lost in the depths of despair when something does not work out. While there may be no immediately perceptible reason for why the causal web is the way it is, the fact is that it is. It makes complete sense to see this and truly realize the infinite nature of the complex web for otherwise we will only be holding on to partial truths. The fact that you met your would be spouse sometime ago and convinced him / her to marry you would not have been possible without an asteroid killing the dinosaurs at precisely the moment it did (ten minutes later might mean that the mammal from which you or your spouse descended might have been eaten by a dinosaur before it got a chance to reproduce). At first glance this may seem absurd, but I would request you to reflect upon this deeply and patiently. No doubt the individual also contributed to the marriage but the amount of that is so miniscule when compared to how the cosmos set it up is incredibly small. Similar is the case of a divorce or a bad marriage. So, though the causal web is co-created by us with the cosmos, we seldom step back to understand the contribution of all of cosmos.

When one reflects upon this deeply and can see how every event in his/her life has been set up by the infinitely complex causal web constructed by the cosmos, or in hindu terminology - by the leela of god, it immediately dawns on us that the sense of doership is false and hence there is no attachment to praise or abuse. It goes even deeper - there is no binding happiness or agony over how things turn out. At all times, we may play along with the game, as per dharma, and rest in deep peace in the knowledge that the infinite causal web is responsible for how things turn out and not oneself. When we see this truly, we understand that the person who is causing / caused us to suffer was also set up that way by the causal web and immediately the anger vanishes and compassion towards that person springs forth.

This perhaps is the central message of the Gita as expounded by, arguably, its most famous phrase

Karmanyeva adhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana

Concern yourself with right action and not about its consequences.

So, coming back to the Sachin vs Ponting debate, what we typically refer to as Sachin or Ponting are merely processes that have been set up by this infinitely complex causal web. The individuals at the point have certainly contributed to the processes. But their contribution is limited when compared against the contribution of the causal web to these processes. So comparing the two is like comparing the height of two waves in the sea. The contribution of the wave is limited when you contrast it with the contribution of the ocean / sun / moon / all of cosmos!

Why compare wave heights. Look at the ocean.

When the individual can step back from the process without identifying with it and can witness it happening, that is when true awakening happens. May this dawn upon the process that wrote this and the process that is reading this!